' The petitioner was married to respondent No,1 Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, but his marriage ended in divorce. A suit for recovery of dower of Rs,50,000 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner, which was decreed by Mr. Muhammad Zafar Sultan, Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Pasrur vide his judgment dated 29-5-1996 to the extent of Rs,30,000. It was held that respondent afore-named had received ornaments worth of Rs,20,000 at the time of her marriage, therefore, that amount was not allowed as dower money. The petitioner feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Mr. Muneer Ahmad Sheikh, learned District Judge, Sialkot vide his judgment dated 21-10-1996.
2. In this Constitutional petition, it is submitted that respondent No,1 had executed an agreement Exh.D/1 in presence of the marginal witnesses whereby she had relinquished her dower debt in favour of petitioner. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that respondent was a Pardanasheen lady and was not accompanied by a near relative at the time of alleged execution of the agreement whereby relinquishment of dower was made by her. It was also held by the Courts below that the amount of dower debt relinquished by the respondent is not mentioned in the aforesaid agreement, which also related to permission allegedly granted by the respondent to the petitioner for second marriage.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgments on the ground that the agreement Exh.D.1 having been proved through marginal witnesses, there was no justification for granting the impugned decree. It was therefore, alleged that the findings of the Courts below are against the evidence on record.
4. I have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the evidence examined before the learned trial Court. It is clear from the perusal of oral evidence examined by the petitioner that none of the marginal witnesses of the agreement Exh.D/1 previously knew respondent No,1 and had come to know about her for the first time at the time when she allegedly executed the document. Both the marginal witnesses admitted that none of the close relatives of the respondent accompanied her at the time of execution of the aforesaid document. It is also clear that respondent was a Pardanasheen lady and as such the law requires abundant caution to be exercised while dealing with her regarding such transaction. In this case, the perusal of document Exh.D/1 will show that respondent voluntarily allegedly agreed to permit her husband i,e, the petitioner to take a second wife and also recited that she had relinquished her dower debt.
There appears to be no justification that while giving permission to her husband for taking another wife, instead of receiving something in lieu thereof, she would relinquish her right of debt, which was available to her as per Nikah deed placed on record. The aforesaid Nikah deed shows that total amount of dower money was fixed as Rs,50,000 at the time of solemnization of the marriage between the parties. An amount of Rs,20,000 out of that dower money represented ornaments given to the respondent at the time of marriage, whereas Rs,30,000 were to be paid in cash as deferred dower.
5. The respondent had denied the execution of the document and also relinquishment of the aforesaid dower amount. In that case some unimpeachable evidence should have been examined to show that respondent had entered into transaction voluntarily or had actually signed or thumb- marked the relinquishment deed i,e, Exh.D/1. No attempt was made by the petitioner to get the signature examined through an expert or the alleged thumb-impression of the respondent identified from experts of Finger Print Bureau. This was all the more necessary because the witnesses examined by the petitioner at the trial did not know the respondent personally nor they had satisfied that it was a voluntary type of transaction. Even otherwise the evidence examined at the trial by the petitioner/defendant was contradictory. In this regard, the statement of the petitioner/defendant will show that none of the relatives of the respondent accompanied her at the time of execution of the document Exh.D.1. The petitioner/defendant also added that he had paid Rs,30,000 of dower money in the presence of his mother to the respondent, which the latter had returned to him. He also stated that he had got this factor written in Exh.D/1 that he had paid Rs,30,000 to the respondent/plaintiff but she had returned the same. However, a perusal of Exh.D/1 will show that no such thing was written therein. It follows that the defendant had two stories regarding the aforesaid dower money. One that he had paid Rs,30,000, which was returned to him and the other that respondent while giving permission to him for re-marrying had also agreed to relinquish the dower amount. These two stories are mutually destructive and highly incredible. If the petitioner had already paid dower money, which was received by the respondent and then returned to him, then the question of relinquishment would not arise as claimed by the petitioner/defendant. It appears to be a manufactured story which the learned Courts below have rightly disbelieved while decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. The other witness namely Manzoor Hussain D.W.2 stated during cross-examination that he had not seen the register of stamp vendor nor the stamp vendor had entered the contents of Exh.D/1 in his register. The 3rd witness namely Taj Din D.W.3 stated that document Exh.D/2 instead of saying Exh.D/1 was written in his presence. According to him the scribe did not get his signatures in his register nor the contents of the agreement were entered in the register for petition writing. According to the petitioner/defendant the scribe had entered the contents of the document in his register and had obtained thumb-impressions and signatures of the parties in the aforesaid register. However, his witnesses stated conversely that no entry was made in the register. On this ground also the genuineness of the relinquishment deed Exh.D/1 becomes highly doubtful.
6. In view of the above discussion, there is no latent or patent lacuna in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The writ petition being without merit, is dismissed in limine.
C. M . No .1/97 ' With the disposal of main petition, this application also stands disposed of.